Neuromyths are the Chinese whispers of scientific facts about the brain. As a concept, neuromyths was first coined by a neurosurgeon in the 1980s when he referred to unscientific ideas about the brain within medicine. The term today has been defined as a misconception produced by a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or misreporting of scientific papers. Some neuromyths have been used to justify educational policies, curriculums, practises, and behaviour (Gini et al., 2021). As seen in the film ‘The Incredibles’, parents may play Mozart to their baby as they believe this will make them more intelligent in years to come (van Elk, 2019). Some mathematicians may pride themselves as being “right-brained thinkers” (van Elk, 2019). Others might refer to the “lizard brain” to justify behaviours resulting from poor self-control (Cesario et al., 2020).
These neuromyths have been absent of any reliable scientific evidence. The neuromyths I am most taken back by are:
“Alcohol Kills Brain Cells”
Many people hear this neuromyth when coming of age and once introduced to alcohol and social drinking. Teachers and parents may try (rightfully so) to discourage excessive alcohol consumption by telling kids that alcohol kills brain cells. While it has been well established that alcohol does impact the functioning of the brain and indeed causes neurological damage, it does not simply kill brain cells (Vilines, 2021).
The impact that alcohol has on the brain is not well understood. However, it has been established that alcohol consumption can cause disruptions in neurogenesis. Neurogenesis is the birth of new neurons in the brain, which are fundamental cells within the brain that -simply put- play a key role in transmitting information, receiving stimuli from the external would and sending information to the rest of the body to create actions (Tateno & Saito, 2008). Disturbances in this process may lead to neurodegeneration or brain atrophy in heavy drinkers, the phenomenon when volumes in regions of the brain begin to shrink (Topiwala, 2017).
Neurogenesis takes place through the four stages of proliferation, migration, differentiation, and survival (Tateno & Saito, 2008). Alcohol consumption may disrupt this process by supressing neuron proliferation and differentiation from neuron stem cells into different neuron sub-types (Jacobs & Miller, 2001). Therefore, resulting in a reduction of newly birthed neurons consequentially interrupting the growth and survival of neuro pathways. Studies on animals have suggested that alcohol damages neurons within the brain, which can lead a loss of structure or function and damage in the post-synaptic terminal (the end of the neuron which sends messages to neighbouring neurons and pathways; Lovinger, (2008). Thus, causing difficulties in communication between brain pathways.
Overall, the conclusion that alcohol kills brain cells is an oversimplification of the influence alcohol has on the brain. As demonstrated, alcohol does cause damage to the brain by disrupting the process of neurogenesis, leading to neurodegeneration and brain atrophy (Topiwala, 2017). High alcohol consumption has also been linked to injuries that may lead to the death of neurons, such as stroke or head injury (Tateno & Saito, 2008).
“Humans only use 10% of their brains capacity”
As famously recited by Morgan Freeman in the Hollywood film, Lucy, it has been widely accepted that humans only use 10% of their brain’s capacity (Lewis, 2014). Additionally suggesting that unlocking the unused 90% of the brain would make one unstoppable. The culprit of this myth has been linked to a publication by William James, a psychologist who wrote that we are only utilising a small part of our possible mental and physical resources. Another author in 1936 reinterpreted the statement and added his own spin, stating that the average individual only develops 10% of his/her mental capacities (Lewis, 2014). Studies have demonstrated the large acceptance of this myth by students, teachers, scientists, and the general population (Hughes & Lyddy, 2013). Although the brain has an estimated 100 billion neurons, they are outnumbered by other cells called glial cells, which function remains somewhat a mystery (Lewis, 2014). Textbooks have suggested that there are ten glial cells for every neuron cell and thus neurons only make up 10% of our brain, however this has been debated and the true ratio remains inconclusive (Yuhas & Jabr, 2012).
The brain has grown three times its original size over the span of two million years of evolution (Lewis, 2014). The growth of our brain has been assisted by the evolved gyri, a system of folds and ridges that create the surface area of the brain, which has enabled our brains to grow confined within the human skull (Lewis, 2014; Long & Huttner, 2020). The growth of the brain through evolution suggests a response to greater activity and capacity, such as the proliferation of neurons (Long & Huttner, 2020). Therefore, if we only used 10% of our brains, this would likely lead to neurodegeneration or brain atrophy from inactivity which would resemble patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (Lewis, 2014). Brain imaging techniques such as fMRI reveal that we are using much more than 10% of our brains with certain areas of the brain being more activated when recalling certain memories and processing the world around us, but activity is constantly changing (Lewis, 2014). Studies have shown that 100% of the brain is used over the course of the day and almost every part of the brain is always active, even during sleep (Boyd, 2008).
Thus, the notion that the human individual merely uses 10% of their brain’s capacity is a misinterpretation of the work of early authors that have been cited uncritically without evidence. This myth has been perpetuated by the mysterious charm it holds indicating the amazing human potential. While our brains certainly exceed their potential, our understanding of the brain and all its complexities is indeed limited.
“Multi-tasking = Efficient”
Personally, I have found the myth of multi-tasking to be most shocking. With our increasing access and use of technology, it is getting increasingly difficult not to scroll or listen to a podcast while doing day-to-day activities like cooking, showering, or working. While multi-tasking behaviours are adopted by many who believe it to be a productive strategy, the myth lies in its efficiency. Multi-tasking is defined as “divided attention and non-sequential task switching for ill-defined risks as they are performed in learning situations” (Janet et al., 2020; Junco & Cotton, 2012). Neuroscience has unveiled that the brain does not do tasks simultaneously, but rather, changes gears to other tasks quickly (Napier, 2014). In each act, the activity in our brain changes from the processes of writing notes, listening to music, and responding to a friend over text (Napier, 2014).
The use of mobile phone multitasking is popular among the population. A study conducted on a student population found that the use of mobile phones distracted them from learning. The impact of multi-tasking varies among different mobile phone uses, learning activities and between different individuals (Chen & Yan, 2016). The use of mobile phones impairs learning and perhaps other attention demanding activities and by distracting us through continuous notifications, which drain our attentional capacity and leave little for useful tasks (Chen & Yan, 2016). Studies have found that employees can take up to 25 minutes to recover from a distraction at work, such as a call or email, to return to their prior task (Rosen, 2008).
Neurological research has uncovered that multi-tasking forces the brain to schedule tasks in a hierarchy of priority and can result in the release of stress hormones and adrenaline (Rosen, 2008). The release of stress hormones and adrenaline can consequentially lead to ill mental and physical health (Osóio et al., 2016). Furthermore, brain scans have shown that different regions of the brain, specifically one involved in building skill, rather than the hippocampus which is involved in storing and recalling information, are activated when individuals are distracted or multi-tasking (Rosen, 2008). Therefore, learning tasks and recall are less effective when multi-tasking.
While the romanticisation of multi-tasking in our busy culture is understandable as productivity is often favoured over taking our time, multi-tasking can lead to greater stress and less efficient work. Our brains are built to focus which enables a less stressful learning experience and enhanced efficiency.
References
Boyd, R. (2008). Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/
Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Eisthen, H. L. (2020). Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917687
Chen, Q. & Yan, Z. (2016). Does Multitasking With Mobile Phones Affect Learning? A Review. Computers in Human Behaviour. 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047
van Elk, M. (2019). Socio-cognitive biases are associated to belief in neuromyths and cognitive enhancement: A pre-registered study. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.014
Gini, S., Knowland, V., Thomas, M.S. and Van Herwegen, J. (2021), Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15, 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12303
Hughes & Lyddy (2013). Misconceptions About Psychological Science: A Review. Psychology Learning and Teaching. 12(1), 20-32. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.20
Jacobs, J. & Miller, M., (2001). Proliferation and Death of Cultures Fetal Neuocortical Neurons: Effects of Etahnol on the Dynamics of Cell Growth. Journal of Neurocytology. 30. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1015013609424.pdf
Jamet, E. Gonthier, C. Cojean, S., Colliot, T., Erhel S. (2020). Does Multitasking in the Classroom Affect Learning Outcomes? A Naturalistic Study. Computers in Human Behaviour. 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106264
Junco, R. & Cotton, S. (2012). No A 4 U: The Relationship Between Multitasking and Academic Performance. Computers & Education. 59(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
Kubota, M., Nakazaki, S., Hirai, S., Saeki, N., Yamaura, A., Kusaka, T. (2001). Alcohol consumption and frontal lobe shrinkage: study of 1432 non-alcoholic subjects. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 71(1). https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/71/1/104
Lewis, J. G. (2014). “Lucy” is Wrong, We Use Way More Than 10% of Our Brains. Nature. Scitable. https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/mind-read/lucy_is_wrong_we_use/
Long, K. R. & Huttner, L. W. (2020). Chapter 11- Formation of Gyri and Sulci in J. Rubenstein & P. Rakic Eds(2nd), Patterning and Cell Type Specification in the Developing CNS and PNS. Comprehensive Developmental Neuroscience. Academic Press. https://www.elsevier.com/books/patterning-and-cell-type-specification-in-the-developing-cns-and-pns/rubenstein/978-0-12-814405-3
Lovinger, D. M. (2008). Communication networks in the brain: Neurons, receptors, neurotransmitters, and alcohol. Alcohol Research & Health, 31(3), 196–214.
Martin, P. R., Gibbs, J., Nimmerrichter, A., Riddle, W. Welch, L., Willcott, R. (1995). Brain Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Studies in Recently Abstinent Alcoholics. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 19(4). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1995.tb00992.x
Napier N. (2014). The Myth of Multitasking. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/creativity-without-borders/201405/the-myth-multitasking
Osório, C., Probert, R., Jones, E., Young, A., Robbins, I. (2016). Adapting to Stress: Understanding the Neurobiology of Resillience. Bheavioural Medicine. 43(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2016.1170661
Rosen, C. (2008). The Myth of Multitasking. The New Atlantis, 20, 105–110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43152412
Tateno, M., Saito, T. (2008). Biological Studies on Alcohol-Induced Neuronal Damage. Psychiatry Investigated. 5(1). 21-27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796092/#B73
Topiwala, A., Allan, C. Valkanova, V., Zsoldos, E., Filippini, N., Sexton, C., Mahmood, A., Fooks, P., Manoux, A., Kivimäki, M., Mackay, C., Ebmeier, K. (2017). Moderate Alcohol Consumption as Risk Factor for Adverse Brain Outcomes and Cognitive Decline: Longitudinal Cohort Study. British Medical Journal. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2353
Villines, Z. (2021). The Serious Effects of Alcohol on the Brain. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/connect-to-care/addiction-treatment-recovery/alcohol/serious-effects-alcohol-on-brain#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20myth%20that,%2C%20head%20injuries%2C%20and%20accidents.
Yahas, D. & Jabr, F. (2012). Know Your Neurons: What Is the Ratio of Glia to Neurons in the Brain? Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/know-your-neurons-what-is-the-ratio-of-glia-to-neurons-in-the-brain/